Eaken v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 06 June 1922
• Docket Number: No. 16838.,16838.
• Citation: 242 S.W. 426
• Parties: EAKEN v. LIVERPOOL & LONDON & GLOBE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

242 S.W. 426

EAKEN v. LIVERPOOL & LONDON & GLOBE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK.

No. 16838.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 6, 1922.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; John W. McElhinney, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by S. E. Eaken against the Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance Company of New York. From judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

S. E. Eaken, of St. Louis, pro se.

Greensfelder & Levi and Albert L. Schmidt, all of St. Louis, for respondent.

BRUERE, C.

The plaintiff, appellant here, brought suit against the defendant on a policy of insurance against fire, which covered plaintiff's building.

The policy contains the following exemptions:

"This company shall not be liable for loss caused directly or indirectly by invasion * * * (unless fire ensues, and, in that event, for the damage by fire only), by explosion of any kind, or lightning."

At the trial the plaintiff introduced the policy in question, and his evidence disclosed that during the life of the policy an explosion took place in a shed situated on a neighbor's property, approximately 160 feet from the building covered by the policy; that the concussion from the explosion damaged said building; and that there was no fire on plaintiff's premises.

Upon this state of facts and at the close of plaintiff's evidence, the court below, at the request of the defendant, declared that under the law and the evidence the plaintiff was not entitled to recover and rendered judgment for the defendant accordingly. From said judgment the plaintiff duly appealed to this court.

The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the defendant, under the facts in the case, is liable under its said policy.

Inasmuch as the contract of insurance provides that the defendant shall not be liable for loss caused directly or indirectly (unless fire ensues) by explosion of any kind, and since it is conceded that the damages claimed were caused by the concussion from an explosion, and that no fire ensued therefrom, there can be no recovery in this case.

This view was expressed by this court in the case of Hallander v. Jefferson Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 218 S. W. 418, where the identical clause now before us was construed. See, also, Cohn & Greenman v. National Ins. Co., 93 Mo. App. 315, 70 S. W. 259; Heuer v. Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co., 144 Ill. 393, 33 N. E. 411, 19 L. R. A. 594; Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co., Limited, v. Currie (Tex. Civ. App.) 234 S. W....